Allahabad High Court
District Basic Education Officer ... vs Savita Singh And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57002-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 42 of 2025
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur And Another
Respondent :- Savita Singh And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,C.S.C.,S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Adarsh Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
This special appeal has been filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, challenging the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 25438 of 2018.
The Writ petition No.25438 of 2018 came to be filed before this Court by the respondent-petitioner challenging the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 28.09.2018 enclosed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. By this order the District Basic Education Officer has rejected the claim for payment of salary in favour of respondent-petitioner on the ground that appointment itself was not against any sanctioned post. The order of the District Basic Education Officer was passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Writ - A No. 15361 of 2014 (Smt. Savita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) dated 12.03.2014.
The order dated 12.03.2014 passed in Writ - A No. 15361 of 2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher since the date of her joining on 6.7.2010 which has also been approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur by his letter dated 2.7.2010.
According to the petitioner she has been selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Dinkar Balika Vidyalaya, Jamalpur Jaunpur and approval has also been granted by the District Basic Education Officer on 2.7.2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) but till date she has not been paid her salary although she has joined the post. In this regard the petitioner is stated to have preferred a representation before the District Basic Education Officer-respondent no. 3 on 14.7.2013 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) but the same remained undecided.
Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 and 4. In view of the nature of the order which is being passed it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent no. 5.
This writ petition is disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no. 3-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur to consider and decide the representation dated 14.7.2013 of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the case on merit."
The writ petitioner stated that the institution in question, namely, Dinkar Balika Vidyalaya, Jamalpur, Jaunpur, is recognized under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 and the Payment of Salary Act was applicable on it. It was asserted that the institution was established in the year 1962 and the salary bill of the month of May, 1979 has been placed on record to show that 14 teachers and four employees were duly paid salary. It was also asserted that 18 posts were sanctioned in the institution against which salary was being paid. It was further stated that one Pratima Singh was drawing salary from the State fund, she died on 20.01.2001 and against this vacancy the Committee of Management of the institution has sought permission to fill up that post. The permission was granted by the District Basic Education Officer on 30.03.2010. The vacancy was advertised in two newspapers, namely, 'Aaj' and 'Tarun Mitra'. The selection committee, as per Rule-9 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions of Service of Teachers), Rules, 1978 was constituted with the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer in the selection committee which selected and appointed the writ petitioner. This appointment was also approved on 02.07.2010. The respondent-petitioner joined pursuant to the said order and had been working continuously. Payment of Salary, however, was not released to her, which led her to file the writ petition wherein a direction was issued to the District Basic Education Officer to consider her representation. It is pursuant to the said direction that the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected. The only reason assigned in the order that there was no post.
Although, counter affidavit has been filed by the District Basic Education Officer but the facts with regard to approval being granted to fill up the post, sanction granted by the District Basic Education Officer and nominee sent for the selection process by District Basic Education Officer etc. are undisputed. It was also undisputed that the appointment of the respondent-petitioner was approved. The only contention of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that in a survey conducted in the year 2010, lessor number of post were found admissible, based upon the students strength.
Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 2024 SC 260. Various other judgments have also been relied.
In the present appeal also the fact that 14 teachers were getting salary out of the State fund since 1979 has not been disputed. In the counter affidavit the assertions made in the writ petition are although denied as baseless and it is stated that the institution was taken in the grant-in-aid list in the year 1970 in place of 1969 but the only assertion made in respect of the salary bill appended by the writ petitioner for the particular period is that it has no relevance with the present matter. This assertion in the counter affidavit makes it apparent that salary bill for the month of May, 1979 is not disputed.
Once that being so, 14 posts of teachers were in existence in the institution in question. There was no order passed by the Director, reducing the number of posts, subsequently. Merely, on a physical inspection and only on the fact that lessor number of students are found, it could not be led to draw an adverse inference that number of posts of teacher are reduced. Strength of students may vary from year to year unless the Director passes some orders to reduce the number of posts in an institution, therefore, it could not be open for the respondents to oppose the claim for payment of salary to the writ petitioner. This particularly shows that the procedure under the Rules of 1978 are complied with and the appointment was also approved by the District Basic Education Officer.
It is also not in dispute that the post was duly advertised and the respondent-petitioner also possesses requisite qualifications.
Once that being so, we find no occasion to interfere in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the special appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025
Prajapati
